Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 861

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 431

p-value2

age

86

50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)

50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73)

0.936

gender

86

0.476

f

61 (71%)

29 (67%)

32 (74%)

m

25 (29%)

14 (33%)

11 (26%)

occupation

86

0.902

day_training

2 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

full_time

10 (12%)

5 (12%)

5 (12%)

homemaker

6 (7.0%)

3 (7.0%)

3 (7.0%)

other

2 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.7%)

part_time

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (19%)

retired

21 (24%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

self_employ

4 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

student

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

unemploy

23 (27%)

13 (30%)

10 (23%)

marital

86

0.686

cohabitation

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.3%)

divore

10 (12%)

7 (16%)

3 (7.0%)

in_relationship

1 (1.2%)

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

married

22 (26%)

10 (23%)

12 (28%)

none

46 (53%)

22 (51%)

24 (56%)

seperation

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

widow

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

edu

86

0.789

bachelor

25 (29%)

9 (21%)

16 (37%)

diploma

18 (21%)

11 (26%)

7 (16%)

hd_ad

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

postgraduate

7 (8.1%)

4 (9.3%)

3 (7.0%)

primary

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

secondary_1_3

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (9.3%)

secondary_4_5

16 (19%)

8 (19%)

8 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

fam_income

86

0.890

10001_12000

4 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

3 (7.0%)

12001_14000

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

14001_16000

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

16001_18000

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

18001_20000

4 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

1 (2.3%)

20001_above

14 (16%)

7 (16%)

7 (16%)

2001_4000

13 (15%)

9 (21%)

4 (9.3%)

4001_6000

10 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

6 (14%)

6001_8000

9 (10%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

8001_10000

7 (8.1%)

3 (7.0%)

4 (9.3%)

below_2000

12 (14%)

6 (14%)

6 (14%)

medication

86

76 (88%)

39 (91%)

37 (86%)

0.501

onset_duration

86

15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56)

16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)

13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35)

0.255

onset_age

86

35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64)

33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)

36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64)

0.337

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 861

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 431

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

86

3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.858

recovery_stage_b

86

18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)

18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23)

0.543

ras_confidence

86

30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43)

29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)

30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43)

0.286

ras_willingness

86

12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)

12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15)

0.439

ras_goal

86

17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)

17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

0.653

ras_reliance

86

13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)

13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)

0.702

ras_domination

86

9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15)

10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)

9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14)

0.051

symptom

86

30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56)

31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)

28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56)

0.131

slof_work

86

22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)

22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)

23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30)

0.552

slof_relationship

86

25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)

25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)

26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35)

0.251

satisfaction

86

20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32)

18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)

22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32)

0.015

mhc_emotional

86

11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)

11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18)

0.197

mhc_social

86

15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30)

15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)

14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26)

0.886

mhc_psychological

86

22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36)

21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)

22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36)

0.351

resilisnce

86

16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27)

16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)

17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27)

0.444

social_provision

86

13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)

14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

0.130

els_value_living

86

17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25)

16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)

17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25)

0.040

els_life_fulfill

86

12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20)

0.001

els

86

29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45)

28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)

31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45)

0.003

social_connect

86

26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48)

27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)

25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48)

0.332

shs_agency

86

14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24)

0.089

shs_pathway

86

16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)

17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23)

0.184

shs

86

31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47)

29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)

32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47)

0.105

esteem

86

12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)

12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)

12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.137

mlq_search

86

15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21)

14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21)

0.643

mlq_presence

86

13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)

13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)

13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21)

0.583

mlq

86

28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42)

28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)

29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)

0.565

empower

86

19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28)

18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)

19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28)

0.264

ismi_resistance

86

14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)

15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

0.199

ismi_discrimation

86

11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)

10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19)

0.003

sss_affective

86

10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.194

sss_behavior

86

9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.091

sss_cognitive

86

8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

0.333

sss

86

27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54)

29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54)

0.153

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.09

0.179

2.74, 3.44

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.047

0.254

-0.544, 0.451

0.855

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.209

0.261

-0.302, 0.721

0.425

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.262

0.372

-0.467, 0.991

0.484

Pseudo R square

0.022

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.417

17.0, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.349

0.590

-0.807, 1.51

0.555

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.351

0.569

-1.47, 0.763

0.539

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.974

0.811

-0.616, 2.56

0.234

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.752

28.2, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.09

1.064

-0.992, 3.18

0.307

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.366

0.781

-1.16, 1.90

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

1.115

-1.08, 3.29

0.326

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.305

11.5, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.326

0.431

-0.519, 1.17

0.452

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.863

0.311

-1.47, -0.253

0.008

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.949

0.445

0.077, 1.82

0.038

Pseudo R square

0.047

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.468

16.6, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.279

0.661

-1.02, 1.57

0.674

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.724

0.523

-1.75, 0.301

0.172

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.61

0.747

0.146, 3.07

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.432

12.1, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.233

0.611

-0.966, 1.43

0.704

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.204

0.425

-0.629, 1.04

0.634

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.13

0.607

-0.061, 2.32

0.068

Pseudo R square

0.036

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.346

9.74, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.977

0.489

-1.94, -0.018

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.629

0.434

-1.48, 0.221

0.153

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.76

0.619

0.542, 2.97

0.006

Pseudo R square

0.041

symptom

(Intercept)

32.0

1.483

29.0, 34.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.19

2.097

-7.30, 0.923

0.132

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.225

1.131

-1.99, 2.44

0.843

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.78

1.615

-4.95, 1.38

0.275

Pseudo R square

0.040

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.747

21.1, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.628

1.057

-1.44, 2.70

0.554

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.424

0.650

-1.70, 0.849

0.517

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.215

0.928

-2.04, 1.60

0.817

Pseudo R square

0.006

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.898

23.4, 26.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.47

1.270

-1.02, 3.96

0.252

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.28

0.845

-2.94, 0.371

0.135

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.52

1.206

-0.843, 3.89

0.213

Pseudo R square

0.034

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.9

1.033

16.8, 20.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.49

1.461

0.624, 6.35

0.019

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.716

1.166

-1.57, 3.00

0.542

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.065

1.665

-3.33, 3.20

0.969

Pseudo R square

0.064

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.567

9.56, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.801

-0.524, 2.62

0.195

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.400

0.536

-0.651, 1.45

0.459

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.558

0.766

-2.06, 0.944

0.470

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.845

13.5, 16.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.163

1.195

-2.51, 2.18

0.892

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.657

0.923

-1.15, 2.47

0.480

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.459

1.319

-3.04, 2.13

0.729

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.953

19.7, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.19

1.348

-1.46, 3.83

0.381

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.449

0.989

-1.49, 2.39

0.651

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.131

1.413

-2.90, 2.64

0.926

Pseudo R square

0.009

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.672

15.0, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.744

0.951

-1.12, 2.61

0.436

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.028

0.701

-1.35, 1.40

0.969

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.17

1.002

-0.794, 3.13

0.248

Pseudo R square

0.025

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.442

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.930

0.626

-0.296, 2.16

0.140

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.868

0.511

-1.87, 0.134

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.730

-0.421, 2.44

0.172

Pseudo R square

0.057

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.5

0.452

15.6, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.28

0.640

0.026, 2.53

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.067

0.483

-1.01, 0.880

0.890

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.509

0.690

-0.844, 1.86

0.464

Pseudo R square

0.060

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.465

10.6, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.26

0.658

0.966, 3.55

0.001

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.844

0.452

-0.042, 1.73

0.068

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.518

0.646

-1.78, 0.748

0.426

Pseudo R square

0.112

els

(Intercept)

28.0

0.833

26.4, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.53

1.178

1.23, 5.84

0.003

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.729

0.793

-0.825, 2.28

0.362

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.066

1.132

-2.15, 2.29

0.954

Pseudo R square

0.100

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.8

1.437

25.0, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.93

2.032

-5.91, 2.05

0.345

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.13

1.257

-1.34, 3.59

0.374

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.49

1.796

-6.01, 1.03

0.171

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.733

12.3, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.74

1.037

-0.287, 3.78

0.096

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.114

0.736

-1.33, 1.56

0.877

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.512

1.051

-1.55, 2.57

0.628

Pseudo R square

0.041

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.588

14.9, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.12

0.832

-0.515, 2.75

0.183

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.184

0.582

-0.956, 1.32

0.753

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.267

0.830

-1.89, 1.36

0.749

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.246

27.3, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.86

1.762

-0.592, 6.31

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.298

1.206

-2.07, 2.66

0.806

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.259

1.722

-3.12, 3.63

0.881

Pseudo R square

0.032

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.213

12.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.488

0.302

-1.08, 0.103

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.050

0.318

-0.673, 0.573

0.876

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.372

0.453

-0.517, 1.26

0.417

Pseudo R square

0.022

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.502

13.9, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.326

0.709

-1.06, 1.72

0.647

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.194

0.575

-1.32, 0.933

0.738

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.177

0.820

-1.78, 1.43

0.830

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.628

12.1, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.488

0.888

-1.25, 2.23

0.583

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.055

0.686

-1.29, 1.40

0.937

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.049

0.979

-1.97, 1.87

0.960

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.017

26.2, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.814

1.438

-2.01, 3.63

0.573

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.149

1.116

-2.34, 2.04

0.894

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.216

1.593

-3.34, 2.91

0.893

Pseudo R square

0.003

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.625

17.7, 20.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.977

0.884

-0.756, 2.71

0.272

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.086

0.571

-1.21, 1.03

0.882

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.277

0.816

-1.88, 1.32

0.736

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.382

13.7, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.721

0.541

-0.339, 1.78

0.185

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.046

0.496

-1.02, 0.926

0.926

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.138

0.708

-1.25, 1.52

0.846

Pseudo R square

0.023

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.471

11.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.95

0.666

-3.26, -0.649

0.004

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.564

0.475

-1.49, 0.367

0.240

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.789

0.678

-0.540, 2.12

0.250

Pseudo R square

0.073

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.547

9.49, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.774

-2.56, 0.470

0.179

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.029

0.519

-1.05, 0.988

0.955

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.06

0.742

-2.51, 0.393

0.159

Pseudo R square

0.047

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.581

9.26, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.44

0.821

-3.05, 0.168

0.082

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.156

0.582

-1.30, 0.985

0.790

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.604

0.831

-2.23, 1.03

0.471

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.65

0.565

7.54, 9.76

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.791

0.799

-2.36, 0.776

0.325

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.912

0.502

-0.072, 1.90

0.075

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.79

0.718

-3.20, -0.383

0.016

Pseudo R square

0.048

sss

(Intercept)

29.6

1.576

26.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.28

2.228

-7.65, 1.09

0.144

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.760

1.356

-1.90, 3.42

0.577

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.45

1.937

-7.25, 0.343

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.053

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.44], t(127) = 17.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.45], t(127) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72], t(127) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.99], t(127) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(127) = 42.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(127) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.76], t(127) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.56], t(127) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.10], t(127) = 39.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.18], t(127) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.90], t(127) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.29], t(127) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.67], t(127) = 39.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.17], t(127) = 0.76, p = 0.450; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.25], t(127) = -2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.08, 1.82], t(127) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.57, 18.40], t(127) = 37.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.57], t(127) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.30], t(127) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.15, 3.07], t(127) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [0.05, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.13, 13.82], t(127) = 30.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.43], t(127) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.04], t(127) = 0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.32], t(127) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(127) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.94, -0.02], t(127) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -7.75e-03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.22], t(127) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [0.54, 2.97], t(127) = 2.84, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.24, 1.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(127) = 21.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.92], t(127) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.44], t(127) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-4.95, 1.38], t(127) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(127) = 30.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.70], t(127) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.70, 0.85], t(127) = -0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.60], t(127) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.36, 26.88], t(127) = 27.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.96], t(127) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.37], t(127) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.84, 3.89], t(127) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.84, 20.89], t(127) = 18.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.35], t(127) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.00], t(127) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-3.33, 3.20], t(127) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -9.26e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(127) = 18.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.62], t(127) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.45], t(127) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.94], t(127) = -0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.48, 16.80], t(127) = 17.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.51, 2.18], t(127) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.47], t(127) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.04, 2.13], t(127) = -0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.43], t(127) = 22.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.83], t(127) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.39], t(127) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.90, 2.64], t(127) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(127) = 24.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(127) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.40], t(127) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 6.26e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.79, 3.13], t(127) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(127) = 29.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.16], t(127) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.87, 0.13], t(127) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.44], t(127) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.63, 17.40], t(127) = 36.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.03, 2.53], t(127) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [8.38e-03, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.88], t(127) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.86], t(127) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(127) = 24.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.55], t(127) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.73], t(127) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.75], t(127) = -0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(127) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(127) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.28], t(127) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.29], t(127) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.02, 30.65], t(127) = 19.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.91, 2.05], t(127) = -0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-1.34, 3.59], t(127) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.49, 95% CI [-6.01, 1.03], t(127) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(127) = 18.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.78], t(127) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.56], t(127) = 0.16, p = 0.877; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.57], t(127) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(127) = 27.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.75], t(127) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.32], t(127) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.36], t(127) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.33, 32.21], t(127) = 23.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.59, 6.31], t(127) = 1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.66], t(127) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.63], t(127) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(127) = 60.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.10], t(127) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.57], t(127) = -0.16, p = 0.875; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.26], t(127) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.88, 15.84], t(127) = 29.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.72], t(127) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.93], t(127) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.43], t(127) = -0.22, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.56], t(127) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.23], t(127) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.40], t(127) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.87], t(127) = -0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.19, 30.18], t(127) = 27.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-2.01, 3.63], t(127) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.34, 2.04], t(127) = -0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.34, 2.91], t(127) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(127) = 30.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.71], t(127) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.03], t(127) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.32], t(127) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(127) = 37.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(127) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.93], t(127) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.52], t(127) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(127) = 26.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.65], t(127) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.37], t(127) = -1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.12], t(127) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.49, 11.63], t(127) = 19.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.56, 0.47], t(127) = -1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.99], t(127) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.51, 0.39], t(127) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(127) = 17.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.17], t(127) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.98], t(127) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.03], t(127) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.76], t(127) = 15.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.36, 0.78], t(127) = -0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.90], t(127) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.20, -0.38], t(127) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.52, 32.69], t(127) = 18.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.65, 1.09], t(127) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.90, 3.42], t(127) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.45, 95% CI [-7.25, 0.34], t(127) = -1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

421.960

430.631

-207.980

415.960

recovery_stage_a

random

6

424.101

441.443

-206.051

412.101

3.859

3

0.277

recovery_stage_b

null

3

641.797

650.468

-317.899

635.797

recovery_stage_b

random

6

644.716

662.058

-316.358

632.716

3.082

3

0.379

ras_confidence

null

3

780.738

789.409

-387.369

774.738

ras_confidence

random

6

781.123

798.465

-384.561

769.123

5.615

3

0.132

ras_willingness

null

3

542.998

551.669

-268.499

536.998

ras_willingness

random

6

539.445

556.787

-263.723

527.445

9.553

3

0.023

ras_goal

null

3

660.835

669.506

-327.417

654.835

ras_goal

random

6

660.682

678.024

-324.341

648.682

6.153

3

0.104

ras_reliance

null

3

633.668

642.339

-313.834

627.668

ras_reliance

random

6

629.306

646.648

-308.653

617.306

10.362

3

0.016

ras_domination

null

3

592.456

601.127

-293.228

586.456

ras_domination

random

6

589.318

606.660

-288.659

577.318

9.138

3

0.028

symptom

null

3

934.270

942.941

-464.135

928.270

symptom

random

6

935.119

952.461

-461.559

923.119

5.151

3

0.161

slof_work

null

3

760.092

768.764

-377.046

754.092

slof_work

random

6

764.377

781.719

-376.188

752.377

1.716

3

0.633

slof_relationship

null

3

818.953

827.624

-406.477

812.953

slof_relationship

random

6

820.091

837.433

-404.045

808.091

4.862

3

0.182

satisfaction

null

3

873.354

882.025

-433.677

867.354

satisfaction

random

6

872.375

889.717

-430.188

860.375

6.979

3

0.073

mhc_emotional

null

3

694.094

702.766

-344.047

688.094

mhc_emotional

random

6

698.099

715.441

-343.049

686.099

1.996

3

0.573

mhc_social

null

3

810.940

819.611

-402.470

804.940

mhc_social

random

6

816.298

833.640

-402.149

804.298

0.642

3

0.887

mhc_psychological

null

3

839.236

847.907

-416.618

833.236

mhc_psychological

random

6

844.108

861.450

-416.054

832.108

1.128

3

0.770

resilisnce

null

3

750.014

758.685

-372.007

744.014

resilisnce

random

6

751.733

769.075

-369.866

739.733

4.281

3

0.233

social_provision

null

3

649.972

658.643

-321.986

643.972

social_provision

random

6

648.526

665.868

-318.263

636.526

7.445

3

0.059

els_value_living

null

3

648.623

657.294

-321.311

642.623

els_value_living

random

6

648.213

665.556

-318.107

636.213

6.409

3

0.093

els_life_fulfill

null

3

656.511

665.182

-325.255

650.511

els_life_fulfill

random

6

647.948

665.290

-317.974

635.948

14.563

3

0.002

els

null

3

806.409

815.080

-400.204

800.409

els

random

6

801.031

818.373

-394.516

789.031

11.377

3

0.010

social_connect

null

3

936.659

945.330

-465.329

930.659

social_connect

random

6

938.841

956.183

-463.420

926.841

3.818

3

0.282

shs_agency

null

3

769.964

778.635

-381.982

763.964

shs_agency

random

6

771.541

788.883

-379.771

759.541

4.423

3

0.219

shs_pathway

null

3

707.596

716.267

-350.798

701.596

shs_pathway

random

6

711.746

729.088

-349.873

699.746

1.850

3

0.604

shs

null

3

906.836

915.508

-450.418

900.836

shs

random

6

909.518

926.860

-448.759

897.518

3.318

3

0.345

esteem

null

3

468.579

477.250

-231.289

462.579

esteem

random

6

471.544

488.886

-229.772

459.544

3.035

3

0.386

mlq_search

null

3

676.002

684.673

-335.001

670.002

mlq_search

random

6

681.296

698.638

-334.648

669.296

0.707

3

0.872

mlq_presence

null

3

731.531

740.202

-362.766

725.531

mlq_presence

random

6

737.196

754.538

-362.598

725.196

0.335

3

0.953

mlq

null

3

860.333

869.004

-427.166

854.333

mlq

random

6

865.891

883.234

-426.946

853.891

0.441

3

0.932

empower

null

3

716.785

725.456

-355.393

710.785

empower

random

6

721.223

738.565

-354.612

709.223

1.562

3

0.668

ismi_resistance

null

3

614.739

623.410

-304.369

608.739

ismi_resistance

random

6

618.256

635.598

-303.128

606.256

2.483

3

0.478

ismi_discrimation

null

3

656.936

665.607

-325.468

650.936

ismi_discrimation

random

6

654.070

671.412

-321.035

642.070

8.866

3

0.031

sss_affective

null

3

690.599

699.270

-342.299

684.599

sss_affective

random

6

689.047

706.389

-338.524

677.047

7.552

3

0.056

sss_behavior

null

3

709.411

718.083

-351.706

703.411

sss_behavior

random

6

709.444

726.786

-348.722

697.444

5.968

3

0.113

sss_cognitive

null

3

694.898

703.569

-344.449

688.898

sss_cognitive

random

6

691.995

709.337

-339.998

679.995

8.903

3

0.031

sss

null

3

963.918

972.590

-478.959

957.918

sss

random

6

961.911

979.253

-474.955

949.911

8.008

3

0.046

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

43

3.09 ± 1.18

43

3.05 ± 1.18

0.855

0.047

recovery_stage_a

2nd

24

3.30 ± 1.16

-0.213

23

3.52 ± 1.16

-0.479

0.526

-0.219

recovery_stage_b

1st

43

17.86 ± 2.74

43

18.21 ± 2.74

0.555

-0.165

recovery_stage_b

2nd

24

17.51 ± 2.65

0.166

23

18.83 ± 2.65

-0.295

0.090

-0.626

ras_confidence

1st

43

29.63 ± 4.93

43

30.72 ± 4.93

0.307

-0.389

ras_confidence

2nd

24

29.99 ± 4.42

-0.130

23

32.19 ± 4.39

-0.524

0.090

-0.783

ras_willingness

1st

43

12.07 ± 2.00

43

12.40 ± 2.00

0.452

-0.291

ras_willingness

2nd

24

11.21 ± 1.78

0.772

23

12.48 ± 1.77

-0.077

0.015

-1.140

ras_goal

1st

43

17.49 ± 3.07

43

17.77 ± 3.07

0.674

-0.147

ras_goal

2nd

24

16.76 ± 2.81

0.382

23

18.65 ± 2.79

-0.468

0.022

-0.998

ras_reliance

1st

43

12.98 ± 2.83

43

13.21 ± 2.83

0.704

-0.153

ras_reliance

2nd

24

13.18 ± 2.50

-0.134

23

14.54 ± 2.49

-0.876

0.064

-0.895

ras_domination

1st

43

10.42 ± 2.27

43

9.44 ± 2.27

0.048

0.614

ras_domination

2nd

24

9.79 ± 2.15

0.395

23

10.57 ± 2.14

-0.707

0.216

-0.489

symptom

1st

43

31.95 ± 9.72

43

28.77 ± 9.72

0.132

0.798

symptom

2nd

24

32.18 ± 8.11

-0.056

23

27.21 ± 8.02

0.390

0.037

1.245

slof_work

1st

43

22.53 ± 4.90

43

23.16 ± 4.90

0.554

-0.272

slof_work

2nd

24

22.11 ± 4.20

0.184

23

22.52 ± 4.16

0.277

0.736

-0.179

slof_relationship

1st

43

25.12 ± 5.89

43

26.58 ± 5.89

0.252

-0.486

slof_relationship

2nd

24

23.83 ± 5.14

0.426

23

26.82 ± 5.10

-0.079

0.048

-0.991

satisfaction

1st

43

18.86 ± 6.78

43

22.35 ± 6.78

0.019

-0.825

satisfaction

2nd

24

19.58 ± 6.22

-0.170

23

23.00 ± 6.19

-0.154

0.061

-0.810

mhc_emotional

1st

43

10.67 ± 3.72

43

11.72 ± 3.72

0.195

-0.546

mhc_emotional

2nd

24

11.07 ± 3.25

-0.209

23

11.56 ± 3.22

0.082

0.606

-0.255

mhc_social

1st

43

15.14 ± 5.54

43

14.98 ± 5.54

0.892

0.049

mhc_social

2nd

24

15.80 ± 5.04

-0.197

23

15.17 ± 5.01

-0.059

0.672

0.186

mhc_psychological

1st

43

21.56 ± 6.25

43

22.74 ± 6.25

0.381

-0.334

mhc_psychological

2nd

24

22.01 ± 5.60

-0.126

23

23.06 ± 5.56

-0.089

0.518

-0.297

resilisnce

1st

43

16.28 ± 4.41

43

17.02 ± 4.41

0.436

-0.295

resilisnce

2nd

24

16.31 ± 3.96

-0.011

23

18.22 ± 3.93

-0.474

0.099

-0.758

social_provision

1st

43

13.26 ± 2.90

43

14.19 ± 2.90

0.140

-0.501

social_provision

2nd

24

12.39 ± 2.68

0.468

23

14.33 ± 2.67

-0.076

0.014

-1.045

els_value_living

1st

43

16.51 ± 2.97

43

17.79 ± 2.97

0.048

-0.734

els_value_living

2nd

24

16.44 ± 2.68

0.038

23

18.23 ± 2.66

-0.254

0.023

-1.026

els_life_fulfill

1st

43

11.53 ± 3.05

43

13.79 ± 3.05

0.001

-1.394

els_life_fulfill

2nd

24

12.38 ± 2.69

-0.522

23

14.12 ± 2.67

-0.202

0.028

-1.074

els

1st

43

28.05 ± 5.46

43

31.58 ± 5.46

0.003

-1.248

els

2nd

24

28.78 ± 4.78

-0.257

23

32.38 ± 4.75

-0.281

0.011

-1.272

social_connect

1st

43

27.84 ± 9.42

43

25.91 ± 9.42

0.345

0.432

social_connect

2nd

24

28.96 ± 8.09

-0.252

23

24.54 ± 8.01

0.306

0.062

0.990

shs_agency

1st

43

13.74 ± 4.81

43

15.49 ± 4.81

0.096

-0.661

shs_agency

2nd

24

13.86 ± 4.27

-0.043

23

16.11 ± 4.24

-0.237

0.071

-0.855

shs_pathway

1st

43

16.02 ± 3.86

43

17.14 ± 3.86

0.183

-0.536

shs_pathway

2nd

24

16.21 ± 3.41

-0.088

23

17.06 ± 3.39

0.040

0.393

-0.408

shs

1st

43

29.77 ± 8.17

43

32.63 ± 8.17

0.108

-0.663

shs

2nd

24

30.07 ± 7.19

-0.069

23

33.18 ± 7.13

-0.129

0.138

-0.723

esteem

1st

43

12.93 ± 1.40

43

12.44 ± 1.40

0.108

0.406

esteem

2nd

24

12.88 ± 1.39

0.042

23

12.76 ± 1.39

-0.267

0.774

0.097

mlq_search

1st

43

14.86 ± 3.29

43

15.19 ± 3.29

0.647

-0.156

mlq_search

2nd

24

14.67 ± 3.03

0.093

23

14.82 ± 3.02

0.178

0.866

-0.071

mlq_presence

1st

43

13.33 ± 4.12

43

13.81 ± 4.12

0.583

-0.197

mlq_presence

2nd

24

13.38 ± 3.74

-0.022

23

13.82 ± 3.72

-0.002

0.687

-0.177

mlq

1st

43

28.19 ± 6.67

43

29.00 ± 6.67

0.573

-0.202

mlq

2nd

24

28.04 ± 6.07

0.037

23

28.64 ± 6.04

0.090

0.735

-0.148

empower

1st

43

18.95 ± 4.10

43

19.93 ± 4.10

0.272

-0.480

empower

2nd

24

18.87 ± 3.56

0.042

23

19.57 ± 3.52

0.178

0.499

-0.344

ismi_resistance

1st

43

14.42 ± 2.51

43

15.14 ± 2.51

0.185

-0.394

ismi_resistance

2nd

24

14.37 ± 2.40

0.025

23

15.23 ± 2.39

-0.050

0.221

-0.470

ismi_discrimation

1st

43

12.42 ± 3.09

43

10.47 ± 3.09

0.004

1.147

ismi_discrimation

2nd

24

11.85 ± 2.74

0.331

23

10.69 ± 2.73

-0.132

0.147

0.684

sss_affective

1st

43

10.56 ± 3.59

43

9.51 ± 3.59

0.179

0.564

sss_affective

2nd

24

10.53 ± 3.14

0.016

23

8.42 ± 3.12

0.588

0.023

1.136

sss_behavior

1st

43

10.40 ± 3.81

43

8.95 ± 3.81

0.082

0.691

sss_behavior

2nd

24

10.24 ± 3.38

0.075

23

8.19 ± 3.36

0.364

0.039

0.980

sss_cognitive

1st

43

8.65 ± 3.71

43

7.86 ± 3.71

0.325

0.442

sss_cognitive

2nd

24

9.56 ± 3.19

-0.511

23

6.98 ± 3.16

0.491

0.006

1.444

sss

1st

43

29.60 ± 10.33

43

26.33 ± 10.33

0.144

0.681

sss

2nd

24

30.36 ± 8.84

-0.158

23

23.63 ± 8.75

0.559

0.010

1.399

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(121.46) = -0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)

2st

t(128.57) = 0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(116.45) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)

2st

t(128.57) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.85)

ras_confidence

1st

t(100.77) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.20)

2st

t(128.57) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.74)

ras_willingness

1st

t(100.14) = 0.76, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.18)

2st

t(128.41) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.30)

ras_goal

1st

t(104.08) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.59)

2st

t(128.97) = 2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.50)

ras_reliance

1st

t(98.72) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.45)

2st

t(127.90) = 1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.80)

ras_domination

1st

t(110.55) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.95 to -0.01)

2st

t(128.81) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.02)

symptom

1st

t(92.21) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-7.35 to 0.98)

2st

t(120.71) = -2.11, p = 0.037, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-9.63 to -0.31)

slof_work

1st

t(95.07) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.73)

2st

t(125.19) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.83)

slof_relationship

1st

t(97.26) = 1.15, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.99)

2st

t(127.11) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.03 to 5.94)

satisfaction

1st

t(104.53) = 2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.59 to 6.39)

2st

t(128.99) = 1.89, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.16 to 7.00)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(97.47) = 1.31, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.64)

2st

t(127.24) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.36)

mhc_social

1st

t(102.97) = -0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.21)

2st

t(128.91) = -0.42, p = 0.672, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.52 to 2.28)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(100.76) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)

2st

t(128.57) = 0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.17 to 4.28)

resilisnce

1st

t(100.96) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)

2st

t(128.61) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.36 to 4.19)

social_provision

1st

t(105.73) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)

2st

t(129.00) = 2.49, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.48)

els_value_living

1st

t(101.99) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.55)

2st

t(128.79) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.25 to 3.33)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(98.33) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.39, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)

2st

t(127.72) = 2.23, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (0.19 to 3.28)

els

1st

t(97.65) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)

2st

t(127.35) = 2.59, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.85 to 6.35)

social_connect

1st

t(95.21) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.96 to 2.10)

2st

t(125.35) = -1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-9.07 to 0.23)

shs_agency

1st

t(99.50) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.80)

2st

t(128.21) = 1.82, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.20 to 4.71)

shs_pathway

1st

t(98.91) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.77)

2st

t(127.99) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.81)

shs

1st

t(98.20) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.36)

2st

t(127.66) = 1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.01 to 7.25)

esteem

1st

t(123.29) = -1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)

2st

t(128.62) = -0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(105.29) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.73)

2st

t(129.00) = 0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.89)

mlq_presence

1st

t(102.97) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.25)

2st

t(128.91) = 0.40, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.59)

mlq

1st

t(103.16) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.67)

2st

t(128.92) = 0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.09)

empower

1st

t(96.41) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.73)

2st

t(126.49) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.74)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(112.82) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)

2st

t(128.70) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(99.67) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.63)

2st

t(128.27) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-2.74 to 0.41)

sss_affective

1st

t(97.54) = -1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.58 to 0.49)

2st

t(127.29) = -2.31, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.91 to -0.30)

sss_behavior

1st

t(99.41) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.19)

2st

t(128.18) = -2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-3.99 to -0.10)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(95.64) = -0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.38 to 0.80)

2st

t(125.80) = -2.78, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.42 to -0.75)

sss

1st

t(94.79) = -1.47, p = 0.144, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.70 to 1.14)

2st

t(124.87) = -2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-11.81 to -1.65)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(65.08) = 1.76, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.00)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(61.56) = 1.07, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.79)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(52.95) = 1.84, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.07)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(52.65) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.73)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(54.62) = 1.65, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.96)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(51.95) = 3.06, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.21)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(58.06) = 2.53, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.02)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(48.84) = -1.35, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-3.88 to 0.77)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(50.19) = -0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.70)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(51.24) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.97)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(54.85) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.74 to 3.05)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(51.34) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(54.06) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.09)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(52.95) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.35)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(53.05) = 1.67, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(55.47) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(53.56) = 0.89, p = 0.751, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.44)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(51.76) = 0.71, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.26)

els

1st vs 2st

t(51.43) = 0.98, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.42)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(50.26) = -1.06, p = 0.586, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.95 to 1.22)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(52.33) = 0.83, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.14)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(52.04) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.11)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(51.70) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.03)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(66.59) = 0.99, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.97)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(55.24) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(54.05) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.41)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(54.15) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.66 to 1.93)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.81)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(59.35) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.11)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(52.41) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(51.38) = -2.05, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.16 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(52.29) = -1.28, p = 0.416, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.44)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(50.47) = -1.71, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.16)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(50.06) = -1.94, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.48 to 0.09)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(63.94) = 0.80, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.63) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.79)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(52.53) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.94)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(52.24) = -2.76, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-1.49 to -0.24)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(54.09) = -1.38, p = 0.348, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.33)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(51.58) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.34) = -1.44, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.24)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(48.64) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.05 to 2.50)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(49.92) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.89)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(50.91) = -1.52, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.42)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(54.31) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(51.01) = 0.74, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.48)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(53.57) = 0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.52)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(52.52) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.44)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(52.62) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.44)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.89) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.16)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(53.10) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.91)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(51.40) = 1.86, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.76)

els

1st vs 2st

t(51.09) = 0.92, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.33)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(49.98) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.66)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(51.94) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(51.67) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.36)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(51.34) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.13 to 2.73)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(65.37) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.59)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(54.68) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.96)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(53.56) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.44)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(53.66) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.10)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(50.53) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.07)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.55) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.95)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(52.02) = -1.18, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.39)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(51.04) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(51.90) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(50.18) = 1.81, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.92)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(49.79) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.49)

Plot

Clinical significance